You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

There was another video on YouTube of the slide fire modification, and it appeared that the shooter was having a lot of issues with his rifle jamming. Hard to tell if the spent cartridge wasn't ejecting properly or if his magazine wasn't feeding smoothly.

I wonder how well some of the cheaper AR-15 clones out there [not manufactured by Colt] hold up.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

I don't understand the reasoning that something must be useful in order to be ownable. I own a few firearms. I would never turn them on another human being or animal, not even in self defense (okay, maybe an animal in self defense).

Is there anything inherently wrong with chucking 900 rounds of lead downrange in a controlled environment if that's what you want to do? I think it's incredibly silly, but it's a kind of neat engineering challenge.

The problem with firearms is one of externalities. Firearms create an attractive nuisance- we are all measurably less safe because firearms exist and are common in the US. Between accidents, outlier incidents like mass shootings (which, by population, are exceedingly rare), and crime (which usually doesn't involve legally owned firearms, which makes new laws on the subject difficult).

So let's apply economics to the problem: each firearm carries with it a risk that it is used in a negative fashion. Each negative application carries with it a social cost- deaths, medical bills, public fear, and so on. This gives us a strategy for attacking the problem in a fashion far more nuanced than "2nd Amendment, biatches!" and "Ban (some/most/all) guns!"

A gun tax, for example, would be perfectly reasonable- an assessment at the point of purchase for the total social costs of allowing firearms to be owned. It could be adjusted based on its ability to enact costs- high fire rates and large magazines would be taxed more steeply. Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

This allows us to restrict access to firearms without taking active steps to ban anything, it allows us to evaluate our measures based on measurable economic values, it creates a new class of charge to be brought against those who use firearms illegally. It addresses things in terms of externalities.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

It's easy to figure out. We use the Lenny Scale.

If you are exactly like me -- that is, if you are me -- you have precisely the perfectly sized penis. It is so large that it satisfies all women without appearing to be the result of plastic surgery or Satanic pacts. Therefore, everything I own represents that perfect penis.

If you own something slightly more macho than what I have, it is because your penis is too small.

If you own something slightly less macho than what I have, it is because you are gay.

These are not mutually exclusive. You can be both gay and have a small penis, depending on your consumer choices. For example, you own both a 4x4 3/4-ton pick-up AND a Mazda Miata.

I have two of them. They work great. (one on an AR15, one on an AK74) And they've been out for about a year now. But unless Uncle Sam is providing the ammo--they're too expensive to use all day at the range. Fortunately, there's a little lever you can turn and easily put it back into single shot mode.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

I'm fond of this idea. You have to have insurance to drive a car, why not for owning a gun?

Because they are very different in their uses, the computed risk of simply owning a gun and incurring liability without criminal action is absurdly low (and no carrier will ever insure liability from illegal activity), and you don't have a constitutional right to own an automobile.

15,000 or so accidental shootings (with about 600 fatalities) per year is "absurdly low"?

Compared to 300 million guns in private hands--yeah, I'd agree with that.

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you? If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?

Because FlashHarry is supposed to be recoiling in horror at the suggestion that he might be a homosexual.

t3knomanser:I don't understand the reasoning that something must be useful in order to be ownable. I own a few firearms. I would never turn them on another human being or animal, not even in self defense (okay, maybe an animal in self defense).

Is there anything inherently wrong with chucking 900 rounds of lead downrange in a controlled environment if that's what you want to do? I think it's incredibly silly, but it's a kind of neat engineering challenge.

The problem with firearms is one of externalities. Firearms create an attractive nuisance- we are all measurably less safe because firearms exist and are common in the US. Between accidents, outlier incidents like mass shootings (which, by population, are exceedingly rare), and crime (which usually doesn't involve legally owned firearms, which makes new laws on the subject difficult).

So let's apply economics to the problem: each firearm carries with it a risk that it is used in a negative fashion. Each negative application carries with it a social cost- deaths, medical bills, public fear, and so on. This gives us a strategy for attacking the problem in a fashion far more nuanced than "2nd Amendment, biatches!" and "Ban (some/most/all) guns!"

A gun tax, for example, would be perfectly reasonable- an assessment at the point of purchase for the total social costs of allowing firearms to be owned. It could be adjusted based on its ability to enact costs- high fire rates and large magazines would be taxed more steeply. Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

This allows us to restrict access to firearms without taking active steps to ban anything, it allows us to evaluate our measures based on measurable economic values, it creates a new class of charge to be brought against those who use firearms illegally. It addresses things in terms of externalities.

The problem with a tax is that you would be forcing the costs of guns illegally used and, for the most part, illegally acquired onto those who would acquire them legally. And how would the insurance work? Again, most guns used in crimes are illegally acquired. If they will not or can not acquire them legally, what is the likelihood that they will insure them?

ArkAngel:The problem with a tax is that you would be forcing the costs of guns illegally used and, for the most part, illegally acquired onto those who would acquire them legally.

Again, we're addressing an externality. I would imagine such a tax would actually be absurdly low, on a per fire-arm basis. The purpose isn't to punish gun owners, it's to address the negative externality created by having weapons commonly available. The tax serves two purposes- it depresses demand for firearms (thus shrinking the negative externality) and creates a fund that can be used to fund law enforcement and first responders, as well as firearm safety programs (reducing the risks).

Most used in accidents, suicides, and domestic violence are legally acquired. Again, on an actuarial basis, I imagine the costs to the user would be very low. This has the added purpose of creating a financial incentive to reduce the risks associated with firearms.